Sothy: What color is F44s?

[Dialectic]

[D here. Sothy and I have been buddies for a long time now, and we often converse on random topics over email. I'm going to be posting our Integral and Racial Identity-related conversations here. So far, he's been doing most of the writing, and I've been merely promising to respond. When I do, it'll be in these threads. If anyone else wants to jump in, please feel free. We're not operating on a super-high level here, though base familarity with AQAL and SDi is necessary.]

[Sothy begins by discussing the ITP seminars I-I is now offering. Sothy:]

I saw the post on the forum about it and went, and was like, holy shit I wish I had 3k US and lots of time...sorta

I realize that the seminar while useful really isn't that useful for me (I mean, it is always good to study under the "best" in anything (ie. if you want to be good at shooting a gun, learn from a professional sniper)), but the thing is, if you have never shot a gun before, you can get more bang for your buck (yeah, I shouldn't have used a gun analogy as it sounds lame now) much closer to home...mind you, learning solid fundamentals is very useful as well (ie. a beginner going to a sniper), so the argument goes both ways of course.

In your case you've been doing comtemplative practice for a few years now, and have thought about Wilber's analysis of the Kosmos for a while, so hey, I can see why you feel that there would be a lot of benefit in going.

...

I was thinking, what colour do you think the F44 is mainly composed of? I use to adhere to the theory that minorities would be more socially aware than majorities. I am thinking coloured minority in white majority countries in terms of the following examples, but vice-versa is true as well. A Chinese guy may be more socially aware of sexuality than someone else, whereas a black women could be more aware of the glass ceiling, etc. Every group gets picked on in some way, and within that group, the sexes will have different hurdles to overcome which will force them to look at the big picture...

All of this adds up to someone rejecting blue and moving on. Probably ending up in green eventually as you don't want to offend. The point being that the status quo doesn't support you, so it is harder for "belief" to hold onto you (ie. White guys might love Christianity (ala [a buddy of ours]), but a gay White guy is going to question).

However, now I really really doubt this. Minorities have their own beliefs that are sometimes much more primal/power oriented (ie. RED). Look at the Tibet/China are one country fanatics. Why stop at Tibet? Why should Outer Mongolia not be part of China like Inner Mongolia? Historical Precedence (so China acknowledges that Nepal is just part of India...maybe it does)? Look at the Koreans are the bestest ever folk and date back to 2500 BCE as our book says so, but the Japanese book is foolish for not believing in science. Look at North vs. South Indians, etc. The point being that with all of the baggage that Asians bring to North America (and pass onto their children), while they may SEEM to have moved beyond blue, they are really very very blue-centred. They just reject white bias against their own culture. They keep all white bias against other cultures (ie. views on blacks) and they maintain their own cultural ones as a way of "keeping it real".

In other words, they are WORSE than most...

I would say that the Kamikazes are red-blues, and most of the forum is blue-orange. Sure, they might reject Bush, but in the case of minorities, that isn't much of a litmus test. An African-American who denouces gay marriage, but votes Democrat isn't exactly any different than Ms. Lily Smith who denouces gay marriage and votes Bush.

Red=Democrat, Blue=Republican, Orange=either, Green=Democrat...hmmm.

Blue-Orange=whatever the blue in you says (ie. Indo-Canadians don't vote Conservative in most cases, even if they are generally conservative...they still vote Liberal).

[Dialectic]

Very very briefly, F44s right now is undoubtedly green. It used to be a very conflicting mess of mostly blue and green with some orange thrown in, but now it's green.

[Sothy]

I don't know, I need a longer explaination...

I see your point about why this "new" dislike of whitey that many forum members seem to have developed would suggest that they, like academics, have gotten to the whole regressive dislike of whitey/christians thing (suggesting green with its common pathologies).

However, I wonder if it is just bitterness coming in, not feelings of guilt (as most academics are white and green baby boomers were/are white) that is causing the "regression". (Difference is forthcoming.)

You mentioned (not in this thread) that moral development is supposed to lead to equal cognitive development (but not vice versa). Therefore someone like Karl Rove can be at the highest level of cognitive development, but at a questionable level of moral development. However, in turn, someone like "random baby boomer A", might be at a green level of moral development and as a result would have a green level of cognitive development even if they can't articulate this.

However, I would differentiate this (baby boomer A) person from someone who is an academic "green", in that that the academic person is closer to Karl Rove (in that their cognitive development is leading the way). The way I see it, someone who has had their development "led" by their cognition is going to have a more skewed development than a moral developer. This (academic green) will allow for the green-blue mix or the mean green meme (green-red) profile (as opposed to the more "normal" mixing of colours that are next to each other...ie. orange-green or green-yellow). So one would have "pure" green and regressive green (among others, simplying here).

Now, we know that somsomeone on this forum probably isn't as knowledgeable in the various philosophies, histories, religions, economic systems, etc. as academics are. The "regressions" that people on this forum have is more as a result of biases that they had while younger and bitterness that they have developed as adults (as opposed to guilt that academics might develop when they go post-mo during their studies). Are these really "regressions" or are they their "centre"? Have they switched blues? From white is right to white is wrong? But still thinking of themselves, not self+others=self (see, guilt can be useful)?

The people displaying green tendencies on this site can't be pure green (not that anyone is I suppose), and I doubt that they are cognitive greens (as threads about the CEO of Sony demonstrate...besides "pure/moral greens would have green cog. anyway (that thread, and others just like it are not the hallmark of the top 10% of academic insight are they?)). So what kind of green are they?

The "anti gay" "anti outsourcing" Black American who votes for Kerry is really not blue? We know that he (or she) isn't green (anti-gay), isn't orange (anti-outsourcing), probably isn't very objective about things (why is gayness so much more wrong than being married seven times or having 20 girlfriends?). So what do we have?

[The Ram]

From what I have observed, people go through their entire lives at
several different levels simutaneously; I don't think all of their faculties
advance or catch up to the lead--Though ideally one should aim for it.

So back to the color issue..what color are the 44 members?

Now that I think about it, if the members are truly morally green
then they HAVE to be cognitively green as well. I am not sure, convinced
that we have reached the pure green phase.

Perhaps an advanced version of green?

ala homo sapion to homo sapion sapion?

[JadeDragon]

According to what I understand, the basic value memes, as defined by Becks as "a core value system, a worldview, an organizing principle that permeates thought structures, decision-making systems, and various expressions of culture", are consistent and remain fully active at all later stages, but those transitional structures that pertain to the self (such as morals, values, and self-identity) can be replaced by subsequent stages given the appropriate context. These subpersonalities can exist at different memes so that it's possible for an individual to have a purple subpersonality, a blue subpersonality, and so on, depending on the contextual trigger.

So, for example, even though an individual's centre of gravity may be green, he/she will not activate a purely red meme unless it is regressing, but he/she can (and constantly does) activate the "corresponding basic structures" of the red meme (the egocentric-ethnocentric level). For this individual, the activation of the red meme is the surfacing of a part of the "distal self" (or "me") and involves the basic structures that were first implemented during the red period, but because his/her exclusive identity is no longer "red", the corresponding transitional structures (morals, values, worldviews) are not completely activated unless one is regressing or activating a red subpersonality. Wilber differentiates between "capacities" and "self" as enduring and transitional, respectively.

Maybe it would be more convenient to think of these memes as a guide rather than a category that one resides in, because it is very likely that one can be a "different person" in different contexts, and assigning an individual a particular meme can be limiting in some ways. As Wilber puts it, "all of us have all of these waves of consciousness available to us as potentials that can unfold under facilitating circumstances".

[Sothy]

The Ram, yes, there at least 6 or 7 different streams of development, and they can be at different "levels", however, some of them are tied to each other (ie. moral development and cognitive dev.). So the chances of someone being "pure" green is very low I think. People are much too complex for that, and in that sense, Jade's suggestion of using these levels as guides is valid. However, as someone does have a "centre of gravity", when I say that I think that F44s is not green, I mean "not at a green centre of gravity".

Yes, the lower levels of the hiercharchy are present in the higher, just like a Venn diagram. However, the ability to use different levels when appropriate is supposed to truly advance at second tier and higher, isn't it? (Second tier being yellow on up.) Given that, for members here to be showing so much (and that is it, if it was just a bit...) regression could suggest that their centre of gravity is lower as it is coming too easily to them (no trauma, etc. involved). However, as we are all smart mother fuckers, it is possible that our cognitive development is at green.

[The Ram]

True that.

[Sothy]

With all that said, Dialectic has put a lot of thought into this, so hopefully he'll have enough time to write out a response eventually...

[Dialectic]

I don't know, I need a longer explaination...

You always do, you bastard.

I see your point about why this "new" dislike of whitey that many forum members seem to have developed would suggest that they, like academics, have gotten to the whole regressive dislike of whitey/christians thing (suggesting green with its common pathologies).

I disagree that many forum members have developed a new dislike for whitey. Perhaps I haven't been reading the same threads, but I haven't really sensed it. A few have, but mostly, it's actually one big semi-love fest in here. I do agree that a common Western green pathology is a dislike of whitey/ Christians, and it's not necessarily regressive, though it can be (blanket dislike is regresive, for example, but wariness isn't).

However, I wonder if it is just bitterness coming in, not feelings of guilt (as most academics are white and green baby boomers were/are white) that is causing the "regression". (Difference is forthcoming.)

Again, I'm not sure you're seeing the same signs of green that I am. I'm not really seeing a regressive dislike for whitey; I'm seeing green manifest as pathological equality and openness. I've discussed this at length with Lopan, and essentially, what's happened is every time some kind of serious or facetious absolute statement is made, a green steps in to undermine it and fuck up the flow and tone of the ideas. A few minor examples:

1) Thread talks about blue balls. Happy thread, blue balls suck, don't give men blue balls. Then *boom*: "blue balls are nothing compared to childbirth!" That's really not in the spirit of the thread.

2) "Why is an Asian loving only White people and not Asians bad? Can't it be part of development? What's so wrong with that? I just don't get it." What the fuck?

3) The ad of the dude walking into the room with all his ninja weapons and his wife and WM on the bed: "Yo, but what if she's not his wife? What if she's actually setting up the White man for a fall? What if it's not the Asian dude's house? There are SO MANY interpretations of what could be going on!" Give me a fucking break.

3) A more serious one: "You disapprove of WM/AF disparity, but you say AM should date WF! That's a DOUBLE STANDARD YOU HYPOCRITE!" Actually, it's not, not in the way the greens think.

4) "Buddhism and Taoism are incomparable, you dolt." Fuck you, you know-nothing academic.

5) Thread about that Australian Asian chick who put up a billboard saying White men only. "But hey, what if she can get all the Asians she wants, and she's not discriminating, she's just trying to reach out to Whites she can't normally get! You can't assume! And let's not forget, what if she's been really hurt by Asian guys and so she's going to make a broad generalization against them, it's understandable!" Jesus Christ.


6) "WM/AF can totally represent Asians if the cirumstances are right! Never mind the symbolism of leadership, never mind the principle of Affirmative Action, never mind ethnocentric lines defined by the very existence of the organization, never mind taking into account the reason why the organization exists, it's all good!"

Etc., etc., etc. There are many more examples than this. The regressive whitey-bashing you refer to really isn't happening; it's more insidious green shit that annoys me.

You mentioned (not in this thread) that moral development is supposed to lead to equal cognitive development (but not vice versa). Therefore someone like Karl Rove can be at the highest level of cognitive development, but at a questionable level of moral development. However, in turn, someone like "random baby boomer A", might be at a green level of moral development and as a result would have a green level of cognitive development even if they can't articulate this.

Yes, I remember our phone conversation. Moral development doesn't "lead to" equal cognitive development, it encompasses it. When you're moral green, you're cognitive green, and not vice versa.

However, I would differentiate this (baby boomer A) person from someone who is an academic "green", in that that the academic person is closer to Karl Rove (in that their cognitive development is leading the way). The way I see it, someone who has had their development "led" by their cognition is going to have a more skewed development than a moral developer. This (academic green) will allow for the green-blue mix or the mean green meme (green-red) profile (as opposed to the more "normal" mixing of colours that are next to each other...ie. orange-green or green-yellow). So one would have "pure" green and regressive green (among others, simplying here).

I can generally agree that someone with cognitive lead can be more skewed than moral lead. I'm not sure I agree about generalizing academics as being more Rove-like, i.e. with cognitive lead, as many of them may have had a moral lead which resulted in their choosing to focus on humanities in academia.

Now, we know that somsomeone on this forum probably isn't as knowledgeable in the various philosophies, histories, religions, economic systems, etc. as academics are. The "regressions" that people on this forum have is more as a result of biases that they had while younger and bitterness that they have developed as adults (as opposed to guilt that academics might develop when they go post-mo during their studies). Are these really "regressions" or are they their "centre"? Have they switched blues? From white is right to white is wrong? But still thinking of themselves, not self+others=self (see, guilt can be useful)?

I see what you're saying. You're trying to make a case for saying many here are actually blue trying to rep green. I wouldn't say that most academics regress as a result of guilt through study; what lead them to study? Could've been bitterness, unexplored issues, etc. But you do bring up a very interesting point I hadn't considered: what are major similarities and differences between White greens and minority greens (and of course, the various types of minorities)? That's something for much further contemplation.

The people displaying green tendencies on this site can't be pure green (not that anyone is I suppose), and I doubt that they are cognitive greens (as threads about the CEO of Sony demonstrate...besides "pure/moral greens would have green cog. anyway (that thread, and others just like it are not the hallmark of the top 10% of academic insight are they?)). So what kind of green are they?

I skimmed the Sony CEO thread, and of course, you, me, Sheki, and probably a few others didn't participate for a reason. We can't really make a generalization of the "kind" of green of the participants there, as the posters were agreeing/ disagreeing with the move for a variety of reasons. A sidenote is in general, green hates corporations, capitalism, and globalization.

The "anti gay" "anti outsourcing" Black American who votes for Kerry is really not blue? We know that he (or she) isn't green (anti-gay), isn't orange (anti-outsourcing), probably isn't very objective about things (why is gayness so much more wrong than being married seven times or having 20 girlfriends?). So what do we have?

You don't have to be green to vote for Kerry at all. You can be anything. As for what we have, we have something complex, as we usually do when it comes to mind, but really, a blue COG. No big probs there. But you remember that member you brought up a while ago: here's a new example: pro-gay, pro-minority, anti-globalization, pro-tribal/ ancient wisdom, possible anti-White. This is where our discussion comes in. You interpret that as blue COG, and I interpret that as green. Remember, no first-tier meme is wholly rational: blue is self-explanatory, orange is absolutizing, hierarchical, and reductionistic, and green is riddled with performative contradictions. The abovementioned characteristics are extremely common in academic green, White or minority, and so I don't think we really have to worry about blue holding green, green regressing to blue, etc. Because none of them have a vision-logic understanding of their stances, so we cannot expect a "total" understanding of green even by green.

[Dialectic]

From what I have observed, people go through their entire lives at
several different levels simutaneously; I don't think all of their faculties
advance or catch up to the lead--Though ideally one should aim for it.

We have not discussed this nearly thoroughly enough, but this is why, in AQAL analysis, we consider all quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types.

So back to the color issue..what color are the 44 members?
Now that I think about it, if the members are truly morally green
then they HAVE to be cognitively green as well. I am not sure, convinced
that we have reached the pure green phase.

Let's not worry about pure, impure, regressing, blue-holding, etc. There is quite enough evidence as it is to say that we as a whole are dominated (yes, dominated) by green. There are six representative examples in my last post.

Perhaps an advanced version of green?

ala homo sapion to homo sapion sapion?

Again, let's not worry about "where" we are in green. Suffice it to say we have a heck of a lot of postmoderns whose stances are either not wholly rational or are contradictory.

[Dialectic]

According to what I understand, the basic value memes, as defined by Becks as "a core value system, a worldview, an organizing principle that permeates thought structures, decision-making systems, and various expressions of culture", are consistent and remain fully active at all later stages, but those transitional structures that pertain to the self (such as morals, values, and self-identity) can be replaced by subsequent stages given the appropriate context. These subpersonalities can exist at different memes so that it's possible for an individual to have a purple subpersonality, a blue subpersonality, and so on, depending on the contextual trigger.

Yes, less inclusive memes are transcended, not dominated or destroyed or otherwise gotten rid of. Basic structures remain, but exclusivity is negated, though regression, subpersonalities, reactivation, etc. are realistic possibilities.

So, for example, even though an individual's centre of gravity may be green, he/she will not activate a purely red meme unless it is regressing, but he/she can (and constantly does) activate the "corresponding basic structures" of the red meme (the egocentric-ethnocentric level). For this individual, the activation of the red meme is the surfacing of a part of the "distal self" (or "me") and involves the basic structures that were first implemented during the red period, but because his/her exclusive identity is no longer "red", the corresponding transitional structures (morals, values, worldviews) are not completely activated unless one is regressing or activating a red subpersonality. Wilber differentiates between "capacities" and "self" as enduring and transitional, respectively.

Makes sense to me (I haven't read this stuff yet!).

Maybe it would be more convenient to think of these memes as a guide rather than a category that one resides in, because it is very likely that one can be a "different person" in different contexts, and assigning an individual a particular meme can be limiting in some ways. As Wilber puts it, "all of us have all of these waves of consciousness available to us as potentials that can unfold under facilitating circumstances".

No need to worry, Sothy and I are not thinking of these as rigid or absolutist categories, nor are we using these as an objectifying or ranking tool. We are using these labels as a convenient referent for overall cognitive/ moral patterns. As Sothy states above, we are considering COGs, and we are trying to be AQAL as much as possible. We must remember that labelling and categorization, i.e. recognition of patterns and acknowledgement of certain absolute structures (even those that deny absolutes), is useful and healthy if done properly; what postmodernity tries to do is throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, and so after excruciating analysis, debate, introspection, and research, we are forced to end up with the same mess we began with (I've seen this many times) because all labels and categories and hierarchies are thrown out, and everyone pats him/herself on the head and is happy that s/he got to speak, and nothing is done and no real knowledge is produced. If any is produced, it's usually riddled with either performative contradictions or flat-out wrong conclusions. That's not good enough for what we need.

[Dialectic]

The Ram, yes, there at least 6 or 7 different streams of development, and they can be at different "levels", however, some of them are tied to each other (ie. moral development and cognitive dev.). So the chances of someone being "pure" green is very low I think. People are much too complex for that, and in that sense, Jade's suggestion of using these levels as guides is valid. However, as someone does have a "centre of gravity", when I say that I think that F44s is not green, I mean "not at a green centre of gravity".

The number of lines, or streams, is fairly arbitrary (we could split it up into music, math, visual art, hand-eye, etc.), but as long as we're consistent we're okay. In terms of broad categories of lines, the University of Notre Dame has a pragmatic view of the major lines, and I suggest going to the link in the Integral Resources thread to check it out. And yes, we're are not ever trying to fit people into one or another category or worrying about "purity"; we are discussing repeating patterns in thought and expression.

Yes, the lower levels of the hiercharchy are present in the higher, just like a Venn diagram. However, the ability to use different levels when appropriate is supposed to truly advance at second tier and higher, isn't it? (Second tier being yellow on up.) Given that, for members here to be showing so much (and that is it, if it was just a bit...) regression could suggest that their centre of gravity is lower as it is coming too easily to them (no trauma, etc. involved). However, as we are all smart mother fuckers, it is possible that our cognitive development is at green.

We have a very self-selected sample of people, and our forum evolved to the point where it was designed to attract green.

Put simply: at first we got tons of blue, a few orange and greens. We wanted to encourage intelligence and wit. Cognitive development in greens is intrinsically higher than that of oranges and blues. They are capable of being more rational, whether they express it well or not. We really didn't want to put up with blue stupidity. Orange stupidity was also annoying. Green stupidity had not yet really reared its head. So we decided to cut out as much stupidity as we could and set the bar higher. 25% of the population is at green, less than 1% is Tier II. So naturally, by making our forum smarter and wittier and more civilized, we turned our forum green. This has proven to be, at least to me, Sheki, and Lopan, no less annoying (and possibly even more). Since Tier I is what we have to work with (Tier II, for all practical purposes, can't be factored into our planning; whenever we see healthy not-in-your-face green or Tier II, it's a pleasant bonus), and since we do not want dominance by any first tier meme, we're bringing back the blues and oranges. It's very interesting stuff, forum development.

[da Tao]

I will quickly bud in...

We have a very self-selected sample of people, and our forum evolved to the point where it was designed to attract green.

Put simply: at first we got tons of blue, a few orange and greens. We wanted to encourage intelligence and wit. Cognitive development in greens is intrinsically higher than that of oranges and blues. They are capable of being more rational, whether they express it well or not. We really didn't want to put up with blue stupidity. Orange stupidity was also annoying. Green stupidity had not yet really reared its head. So we decided to cut out as much stupidity as we could and set the bar higher. 25% of the population is at green, less than 1% is Tier II. So naturally, by making our forum smarter and wittier and more civilized, we turned our forum green. This has proven to be, at least to me, Sheki, and Lopan, no less annoying (and possibly even more). Since Tier I is what we have to work with (Tier II, for all practical purposes, can't be factored into our planning; whenever we see healthy not-in-your-face green or Tier II, it's a pleasant bonus), and since we do not want dominance by any first tier meme, we're bringing back the blues and oranges. It's very interesting stuff, forum development.

In what forms would green stupidity manifest? I thought Worldview and Xenzu espoused green views... How bad could a full blown green stupidity be? The way I see it, without others around, they will just burn themselves out - due to their "pluralistic relativism" - greens will tolerate other greens even if opinions differ.

Dealing with green is annoying, I suspect, because you can't "come down hard" on them without them dismissing you as lower levels. They need to be close enough Tier II to understand what it is you are saying.

The people displaying green tendencies on this site can't be pure green (not that anyone is I suppose), and I doubt that they are cognitive greens (as threads about the CEO of Sony demonstrate... besides "pure/moral greens would have green cog. anyway (that thread, and others just like it are not the hallmark of the top 10% of academic insight are they?)). So what kind of green are they?
I skimmed the Sony CEO thread, and of course, you, me, Sheki, and probably a few others didn't participate for a reason. We can't really make a generalization of the "kind" of green of the participants there, as the posters were agreeing/ disagreeing with the move for a variety of reasons. A sidenote is in general, green hates corporations, capitalism, and globalization.

But in general, what are the contrasting groups within greens?

I would welcome a case study on that Sony CEO thread - seeing that myself was involved in it. I was annoyed... Someone started with an opinion but didn't back it up with anything more than ethnocentric rhetorics. I challenged and gave an analysis. I openly admitted that there are things in the scenario that I don't know about - and I invited (not as clearly as I could it seems) others to put forward info to piece together the bigger picture.

But no one did. And that is why it is not anywhere within 90th percentile of academic discourse. Heyyu put together a plausible story, but he didn't even give a quick source. Of course, I was like "huh?" when he called me a P.C. liberal. Now, I don't agree with that - but I would like to avoid contributing to green bias if possible. I would like to hear some opinions on engagement strategy in general.

[Sothy]

I agree with Dialetic and change my stance. His argument (now that he bothered to right it out about several fucking months late) is damn good, and TRUE.